Community Health Worker-Led Oral Health Promotion in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community Health Workers (CHWs) have demonstrated effectiveness in delivering a wide range of healthcare services—including maternal and child health care, as well as the early diagnosis and treatment of malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV—particularly in resource-limited settings across low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although some reviews have highlighted the role of CHWs in promoting oral health, these studies have primarily focused on high-income countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia. To date, limited reviews have examined how CHWs contribute to oral health initiatives specifically within LMICs. This proposed scoping review aims to address this gap by mapping the existing evidence on CHW-led interventions for promoting oral health in community settings in LMICs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.087 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.010 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".